Of course it might have. We don't know yet how or where the guy got the gun. But it is possible to conceive of some gun regulation that might have prevented him from getting the gun in the first place. To say that gun control would not have stopped him is saying something you have absolutely no way of knowing.

I defer to your judgment as moderator but I would like to register my disagreement. Discussion of gun control and our out of control gun culture is abolutely relevant to this thread. Whenever these kinds of things happen those of us who believe we need some regulations on guns (not a wholesale ban, mind you, but just some sensible regulations) are told "oh, don't go there. don't politicize this." Those on the right, however, feel free to jump in with "this never would have happened if everyone was packing heat" - they said if about Columbine, they said it about Virginia Tech and they'll probably say it about this. If Jared Lee Loughner did not have a gun

John Roll

Gabriel Zimmerman

Dorwin Stoddard

Christina Greene (a nine year old child!!)

Dorothy Morris

Phyliss Schneck

would all still be alive and Rep. Giffords would not be fighting for her life and facing the possibility that her life as she knew has changed forever!!!!!

I am so sick of this issue being pushed aside because of the power wielded by the NRA and the gun industry. Sick of it.

Also, I had put "gun violence" as a tag when I started the discussion (although I guess the software separates the words).

Guns scare me, don't like 'em but I would never advocate to take away guns from everyone (although I do think that the notion that the 2nd amendment gives folks an absolute, irrevocable, individual right to own guns, a right that must never be subject to any regulation is dubious, at best). So, if Rep. Giffords supports the 2nd amendment and owns a gun, well, it is her right to do both. But the extreme position taken by the NRA is over the top. When it comes to guns, the NRA, a private institution controls policy through their donations to politicians (campaign finance reform anyone??) and they oppose regulations that most people, even many gun owners, would support (like the gun show loophole - where anyone can by a gun, no questions asked).

Well, thanks. But we will just have to agree to disagree about whether or not everyone packing heat would prevent these kinds of things. Me, I do not think so. Plenty of criminals and would be criminals obtain there guns 100% legally. In the vast majority of places in this country it is super easy to get a gun. And, some people get guns before they become criminals - the VTech shooter is a good example.

The gun culture is just out of control and, IMO, every gun nut out there either thinks they are Charles Bronson or has penis issues!! I said gun nut and I do not at all have a problem with people who use them for legitimate sporting purposes. Not my thing but I would never advocate interfering with that.

The defense thing is a crock perpetuated by the NRA and the gun industry so they can maintain their lavish lifestyles. And, the rest of us pay the price for the unnecessary level of gun violence in this country.

Sure, there may be some anecdotal evidence that guns in homes for defensive purposes are used against criminals. But the weight of the evidence says that many, many more guns in homes end up being used against a resident or guest - either suicide, homicide (especially domestic violence) or accidental death.

But people like their hero fantasies, like to imagine themselves "saving the day" even though in the real world it just doesn't happen that way!!

As to the data of the guns which are bought legally being used against innocents ... this is true. But there is absolutely no proof that it makes up for the crime rates or other issues related to gun violence.

Even if crime has been proven to rise with less restriction on gun purchasing and ownership is still besides the point. One may still have the legal ability to purchase a gun for their own safety or in case the Government attempts to violate civil rights on a massive scale.

The composers of the Constitution knew that it's possible for Government to get out of control and Anarchy to happen. The 2nd amendment is there to give citizens the right to protect themselves from foreign and domestic political anarchism.

Again, I will agree to disagree on your interpretation of what the founders intended with the 2nd amendment. There is much to be said about this but, for now, I will just say one thing. At the time, there was much opposition to a standing army - that was, I think, what they had in mind. No standing army + well-regulated militia = we avoid what just happened (ie., the tyranny of the Bristish occupation army). Funny, too, how people tend to ignore the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd amendment. What does that mean to you? To the NRA?

But I digress. What I really wanted to address was my "Tyranny of the Minority" notion. I do not understand why libertarians get so freaked out about government power yet seem to have so little worries about the exten to which private power is actually the power behind the throne. Doesn't it bother them that corporations and lobbyists have so much power, power that undermines the power of the people? And guess what? The NRA is a lobbying group. And, they are part of the corporatist oligarchy that undermines the will of the people. I do not fear my government as much as I fear the NRA and lobbyists who spend their $$ to undermine the interests of the people.